The Fukushima syndrome

Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency visit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant to assess tsunami damage and study nuclear safety lessons that could be learned from the accident. (Source: Reuters)

Related Stories

The dramatic events that unfolded at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant after last year's tsunami are commonly referred to as "the Fukushima disaster." We need look no further than this description to begin to understand the significant misconceptions that surround nuclear energy.

It was the tsunami, caused by the largest earthquake ever to strike Japan, which killed more than 16,000 people, destroyed or damaged roughly 125,000 buildings, and left the country facing what its prime minister described as its biggest crisis since World War II. Yet it is Fukushima that is habitually accorded the "disaster" label.

In fact, although what happened was shocking, the events in the hours and days after a giant wave slammed over the nuclear plant's protective seawall might be interpreted as a remarkable testament to nuclear power's sound credentials.

To be sure, the environmental impact on those living close to Fukushima may take many years to remediate. But the response in many quarters — not least in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries that immediately condemned and retreated from nuclear energy — once again typified an enduring lack of knowledge concerning two fundamental issues.

The first is safety; the second is radiation. We need to promote a much more inclusive and informed dialogue about both if nuclear power is to be assessed on its genuine merits, rather than dismissed on the grounds of little more than ignorance and intransigence.

Assessing risk

Would the many people who would ban nuclear power also prohibit air travel? After all, the parallels between the two industries are central to the question of safety.

We are often told that air travel, statistically speaking, has a better safety record than any other form of transport. The numerous interrelated reasons for this might usefully be summarised by comparing an aeroplane to a bicycle.

We all appreciate that an aeroplane is a sophisticated device, and that a bicycle is not. We also acknowledge that the consequences of an aeroplane crash are liable to be far more catastrophic than, say, those of a cyclist clipping a curb on their way home from the shops. Accordingly, designing and manufacturing an aeroplane is many times more demanding and thorough than designing and assembling a bicycle.

The same can be said of the approximately 450 nuclear reactors around the world. The fact is that the industry's safety record is second to none when measured against those of its rivals. Like aeroplanes, nuclear reactors are conceived and constructed to mind-boggling standards.

For all of the tension and fear surrounding the fight against a nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, we should not forget that the plant — and with it the notion of a nuclear-energy industry — was subjected to an extraordinary test, in the strictest sense of the word. Were it not for some design flaws that would not be repeated today, Fukushima might well have survived intact — and history would be so different.

Indeed, nuclear energy is a safer proposition now than ever before, but, for many people, the mere spectacle of an event like Fukushima — regardless of the outcome — is sufficient to draw the opposite conclusion. If a 747 crashed into a nuclear facility, we would be unlikely to hear calls for all aeroplanes to be outlawed, but the clamour for every reactor on the planet to be shut down immediately would probably be deafening.

Remember, too, that Fukushima was built in the 1970s, and that the technology on which it was based dated from a decade earlier. Its successors are radically different in how they work, as is the regulatory framework, which sets astonishing new benchmarks for the care and quality required at every stage of the process.

Safety, radiation concerns

The case against nuclear power is deeply rooted in concerns over safety in general and radiation in particular. The Fukushima accident, having reinforced too many opinions and reshaped too few, makes it vital that we try to bring clarity to these issues — especially in those countries where the notion of a sustainable energy policy remains undetermined.

While we know the corollaries of high levels of radiation exposure, what happens at the other end of the scale is less clear. The world is full of radioactivity — walls, concrete, even bananas contain traces — and our bodies have adapted to it. In countries like Brazil and India, people live in environments that have 20 to 200 times the radiation commonly found in the United Kingdom, apparently with no negative genetic effects. Some experts even argue that we may need a degree of radioactivity to stimulate our immune systems.

Of course, there remain concerns around the vital issues of waste disposal and proliferation. Again, consensual debate is required.

But that requires formulating a roadmap that tells us where we stand and what we must do. We need to create the necessary culture of dialogue within industry and academia. And we need to encourage people to think and reflect more. Above all, we need to enhance the public's grasp of the energy sector as a whole.

Currently, there is too much "I know" and "This is what I firmly believe," frequently from influential people, in cases where there is no incontestable right or wrong. Fukushima is one of them.

It is still not too late — not quite — to start couching the broader discussion of nuclear energy in language that will inform rather than alarm, and in terms that will nurture well-balanced judgments rather than entrench long-held biases.

Comments (42)

Comments for this story are now closed. If you would like to have your say on this story, please email ABC Science

Kevin Meyerson :

12 Mar 2012 5:07:57pm

Prof. Freer is firmly vested in the nuclear industry as his article demonstrates. I wonder if he could respond to these statistics and facts regarding nuclear energy:

- 160,000+ livelihoods have been destroyed by the radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. These include lost farms, homes, businesses, destroyed towns & cities due to the evacuation required by the massive amounts of radiation.

- 8% of Japan's land area has been highly contaminated by the radioactive poison of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. This land will not be useful for farming or living for decades to come.

- Nearly 600 people have already died due to the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe (not the quake or tsunami) according to the Japanese government. That number is rising as more deaths are being evaluated. The radiation deaths over the coming decades will increase this number several fold according to all estimations.

- The Japanese government has recalculated the cost of nuclear energy and found that it costs far more than was previously thought. The costs per kilowatt hour are now more than even some 'expensive' renewable energy solutions.

- The nuclear industry, by its own admission, has no clue on the health effects of low level radiation. Studies in France, Germany, and elsewhere show high rates of leukemia near 'safe' nuclear plants. The scale of the release of radiation by Fukushima is, by all health expert accounts, a totally unknown region. The number and types of serious health effects will only be understood after decades of research.

- The Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt one of the world's largest and most profitable power companies - TEPCO. Further, it is challenging the financial resources of one of the world's richest countries - Japan. The costs of a nuclear catastrophe could easily bankrupt most of the nations of the world.

- Japan's nuclear plants, including Fukushima have been applauded as being exemplary in terms of 'safety' for decades. The global nuclear industry has claimed numerous times that a Fukushima style catastrophe was impossible. Further, nearly all the reactors in the world are old by Prof. Freer's standards. The cost of replacing all these reactors would be astronomical, as well as outrageous.

- The nations with nuclear power continue today to pay for each and every watt of energy every generated via clean up, decommissioning, and spent fuel waste storage costs. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying for the energy generated decades ago.

Germany was correct to reevaluate the ethics, risks, and economics of nuclear power. Other countries following suit are also making the right choice. Nuclear is an out of date power source that creates enormous costs for generations to come. Now is the time to move away from the failed dream of nuclear to a clean and safe world.

Chris Yorke :

13 Mar 2012 1:28:14pm

Though this exceptional tsunami killed 19,000 people and caused some 200 billion dollars plus of damage and disruption, it is hard to identify a single radiological death from the accident. (name one, if you can) The most likely radiation casualties will be workers at the plant who received acute dosages, but I Have yet to read any reports of radiological illness. Meyerson fails to explain that the alleged 600 deaths are only notional and theoretical, not identifiable. In fact, the one-off increase in radiation for the Japanese populace amounts to about 1% of Japan’s general background dosage. By the same model, tens of thousands of Japanese must be dying every year from natural radiation.. The claim that 8% of Japan's land area has been 'highly contaminated' sounds like Greenpeace propaganda, not a valid appraisal. (You might do well to examine also the fall-out form coal combustion before mentioning contamination.) To see the poor construction of the whole debate, consider Some 200 persons a year get electrocuted in Japan. In 2010 you could have blamed nuclear plants for 50 of those fatalities, because nuclear generated a quarter of the electricity! (much less in 2011, though) Yet, I am sure Kevin Meyerson has not the slightest interest in electrocution fatalities. On the other hand, he would willingly join public protests over a single death from radiation poisoning near a power plant. Such a fatality would launch a hundred official inquiries, and provoke emotional appeals for the closure of the entire industy... etc. This exemplifies the evident irrationality of the public debate on nuclear energy. It also illustrates a serious public perception problem –and burden- the industry faces.

fallout_guy :

13 Mar 2012 1:38:56pm

So Kevin, this ought to be obvious, but if you're going to attack someone on the basis of their bias your attack itself shouldn't be biased. I'm not certain that it is, but on face value it would appear to be.- You don't give any references so that we can verify the authenticity of your statistics and facts.-You use emotive language (I'd give examples but it ought to be obvious to any casual reader).- While the author's vested interests may be useful to point out, they don't in themselves invalidate his argument.I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. I just think it wasn't well constructed. It also appears that you missed the point of the article which called for an open debate which isn't clouded by ideological bias or unfounded certainty (by either side).As Carl Sagan put it: “The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.”

perspective :

13 Mar 2012 2:09:00pm

how many people have died because they live to close a nuclear reactor in the world to date? now how many people have died because they live close the sea? in that same time period? and as for germany it is now an importer of electricity (from nuclear states) not and exporter its like robbing peter to pay paul.and seen to be green.

Emma Carter :

13 Mar 2012 2:22:08pm

The author above is factually incorrect. There are no deaths linked the radiation from Fukushima. Some deaths and injuries were caused directly by the earthquake and tsunami within the plant, but none from the radiation. As for the loss to farming land, this is another example of our over-reaction to radiation rather than a direct cause of the radiation.

Help101 :

Leo Morgan :

01 May 2012 1:44:47am

Given the choice of duing from cancer in twenty years time, vs immediate death from drowning via a Hydroelectric dam collapse, I choose cancer. In addition to this preference, Recognise that I have a much better chance of a cure for cancer being found in the next twenty years, than I do of a cure for drowning in the next twenty seconds.

Robert Pruitt :

13 Mar 2012 11:03:03pm

The numbers you quote do, on the surface sound impressive and seem to indicate that nuclear is very dangerous. However a little digging into the affects of fossil fuels will show that these numbers are absolutely miniscule. For example just a few short years ago the CDC went around the world examining bodies and after much research concluded that over the next 20 years 60 million people will die just from the hazardous effects of pollution. Which as we all know is mainly caused by fossil fuels. And one of the most important thing to remember about that 60 million deaths is that for many years power generating plants that use fossil fuels have been using scrubbers to reduce pollution at least some. For many many decades the plants were not only more inefficient, causing more fuel to be burned for the same energy produced but none of them had scrubbers of any kind. This would indicate that we quite possibly lost more than 60 million people in every 20 year period prior to the CDC research. And we also know that the pollution is destroying the land, pretty much all of it, as well as every body of water, both small and large, saltwater and freshwater, streams rivers and creeks on the entire planet. Even if the CDC's numbers are off by 50%, which as much fossil fuel we are burning I doubt it's off by much.(In fact I'd be inclined to believe that their off a bit in the opposite direction and that a few more people will die than they estimated) that would still be 30million people KILLED in 20 years, mainly from the pollution caused by fossil fuels.

Now I shouldn't need to tell you, or anyone else for that matter that 600 dead and several times that many dead in the years to come and even the 160,000 who had to move(which I'm betting the Japanese government helped with, if not completely paid for) and even the ruined land is NOTHING compared to the entire planets land and water being massively polluted and roughly 3 million killed per YEAR for the next 2 decades not to mention the millions upon millions killed every year since probably 20 years or so after fossil fuels began supplying pretty much the entire worlds energy.

It is a tragedy what happened in Japan and my heart goes out to them. But to be honest more Japanese people are going to die from the effects of the pollution caused by fossil fuels every single year (including last year)than will ever die from this tragedy. And no, that fact doesn't make it better, but it does put it into perspective don't you think?Everyone thinks Nuclear power is so dangerous because they are just scared to death because they can't see, feel, smell or taste it and yet it has the potential to kill in a matter of minutes, or can leave you lingering for many years going downhill making you die a slow agonizing death. People do not consider something that they can see so easily to be anywhere near that deadly, but just because pollution works slower doesn't mean it's not even more deadly as t

Robert Pruitt :

13 Mar 2012 11:51:00pm

I did some quick digging and found this older post stating the CDC did the study and it's actually 3.1 million deaths worldwide. It also gives rough numbers on the "other" deaths for different types of energy production. Like falls during installation or maintenance for example. It uses Chernobyl as the example for "civilian" deaths from nuclear and even though the Japanese disaster has made it catch up quite rapidly, up to that point solar was actually more dangerous than nuclear(when counting all deaths associated with it, such as the previously mentioned installation and maintenance). But fossil fuels are still by far the most deadly form of energy production, even more so if you count the deaths from extraction, processing and transportation.

Robert Pruitt :

16 Mar 2012 6:42:23pm

The numbers for deaths from solar are not mine they come from published deaths. And remember they are deaths caused by falls and electrocution and such. Not by deaths caused directly by it's use the way fossil fuels are.

Help101 :

Patrick :

14 Mar 2012 10:50:43am

Hello Martin,In short the nuclear industry is itself to blame with promises of cheap safe electricity with accidents like Fukishima which you say "would not be repeated today" "were it not for some design flaws". How often have we heard this claim? It was "subjected to an extaordinary test" as if survived the test. Nonsense it failed miserably you cannot excuse such basic threats as that of tidal waves in an area known to be subjected to repeated tidal waves/earthquakes, what a surprise, it was not a plane that crashed into it.As for the other 450 nuclear plants to assume that they are operating safely is naïve. Go check Russia and China etc. How well do you think the Iranian plant is or will be? Nuclear plants in Australia would need to be located near heavily urbanised areas near the ocean. Evacuate whole areas? I think not. Has previous pro nuclear governments like Howard built up a nuclear industry with nuclear engineers and scientists available to safely support such an industry? Nope, we'll just sell coal and buy in nuclear and trust and hope. "Take years to remediate"? Seriuosly? Hell India has its people swimming in asbetos, do you think the nluclear industry is any better? . While the much smaller Co2 emissions are its best feautre in a warming world, its costly plants needing government subsidies and incredibly complex and human error prone accidents have not negated the dangers of nuclear fission power. Radiation is never safe, there are now lower limts that are safe, we have not adpated to radiation, while it may have played a part of our evolution its effect is to damage the body especially the young. It's link to nuclear weapon production is evident with thousands of nuclear weapons in the world. Waste disposal is not an easy nor cheap solution and as with much of the nuclear industry pushes the problems to future generations. All energy production problems be it coal or nuclear or solar power need to deal with any saftey and cost issues. Saying the plant was built in the 70's or one built in 2012 will be safer is the same line that was pused out since nuclear plants promised safe cheap electrity. Can poor countries afford nuclear power including decomissioning and waste disposal? Modern energy usage patterns are incredibly wasteful yet energy conservation in australia is a hit and miss affair. Build a cheap house, pay huge energy bills! As for death toll for me the data is hard to validate from either side but from past experiences and knowinh humna nature there is a lot very seriuos nuclear problems that are being hidden.

unspokenhermit :

Michael de Vries :

13 Mar 2012 2:32:10pm

There is much debate on what a "safe" level of radiation is. The truth is that there is no safe level. It's the same position with tobacco smoke or any other carcinogen. You can die from the results of your first chest x-ray or your first cigarette if you are extremely unlucky. It's a simple matter of probability. The more carcinogens that you ingest or are exposed to, the higher the risk that it will trigger cell mutations, possibly leading to disease. Smoke for long enough or expose yourself (or be exposed) to radiation for long enough and it will (probably) get you in the end. radiation

brita :

28 Mar 2012 7:33:18pm

i find this argument morbidly amusing ... radiation ... how many people die from exposure?? .. take a look at the number of deaths from skin cancer ... radiation is an inherent part of existance as is gravity ... everything is based on risk assessment and of course monetary value ... personally putting a nuclear reactor on any pacific rim country is a risk that is questionable just like lying in the sun for hours on end. some of you may think that i am being simplistic .. but i would prefer realistic .. thanks Brita

JoeBloggs :

14 Mar 2012 11:55:51am

"Indeed, nuclear energy is a safer proposition now than ever before" - which is not to say it is 100% safe and that the "fail safe" mechanisms are in fact 100% fail safe.

And perhaps when you which to discuss what happens when you are exposed to radiation and radioactive elements and particles you could perhaps keep in your mind the person who discovered Radium, Mrs Marie Curie. She died of leukemia due to being exposed to radiation.

It would seem the collective minds of Germany and Switzerland (and others) consider nuclear energy a risk to great.

Robert Pruitt :

15 Mar 2012 2:30:29am

Those countries reactions are nothing but panic driven knee-jerks. As far as no safe radiation levels goes you are exposed to radiation every second of your life. from building materials to the food you eat it's always there. If I remember the numbers correctly living in a concrete or stone house for a year gives you the same radiation dose as a modern X-Ray. And bananas contain enough radiation that they occasionally set off radiation detectors in airports.

@Patrick

With 3.1 million people dying per year from coal, oil, natural gas and other hydro-carbon based energy production not to mention the literal, and dangerous poisoning of all land and water it is guaranteed that as time goes on and more and more hydro-carbons are burned, especially with the mass increases caused by these countries shutting down the reactors and suddenly needing massive amounts of fossil fuels to compensate the 3.1 million deaths per year will only go higher,probably a lot higher. But even at the low of 3.1 million per year that's just the actual deaths caused directly from fossil fuel pollution. If it's directly killing that many it's a forgone conclusion that it is harming every living creature on this entire planet. Shortening lives by weakening their bodies and allowing other things to finish them off that would not have been able to otherwise.As dangerous as nuclear can seem I can't imagine that even a dozen disasters in a single year would cause the deaths of over 3 million and harm every living creature on Earth. Can you?Nuclear reactors are like airplanes. they are very safe but when one does go down it's usually a big one. that scares a lot of people. Except when accidents happen almost no-one dies from nuclear energy production,and even then if we are panic driven generous with the numbers and say 10,000 will die over the years from Japan's accident. That is NOTHING compared to fossil fuels 3.1 million and rising deaths per YEAR.

So after seeing the numbers are you still afraid of nuclear power, and if so, why?You should be horribly scared of fossil fuels, they are what's killing and harming us.

JoeBloggs :

I agree with you that fossil fuel pollution is a massive killer, no argument there.

But comparing a banana to a nuclear reactor failing is getting too carried away and it diminishes your points.

You could also have pointed out that sunlight is solar radiation and we live in sunlight all the time therefore radiation isn't dangerous. Except that it is dangerous.

You see it is what radiation does to cells that is the problem. If you receive sufficient exposure to radiation the likelihood of cellular mutations, that cause things like cancer, increases. Which is why we have sound medical advice not to expose ourselves to solar radiation when for undue periods of time, or why x-ray techs wear lead vests and hide behind lead walls, and why we no longer play around with hunks of radioactive materials with our hands like Mrs Marie Curie did.

You see Robert over the last hundred years or so we have learned a lot about the effects of radiation and the cumulative effects of prolonged exposure even to low levels of radiation.

Lets not swap one bad apple (fossil fuel pollution) for another bad apple (radiation) when there are a whole raft of other options available to generate electricity for our species.

Robert Pruitt :

16 Mar 2012 7:18:27pm

Sorry you took it that way, but I was nt comparing bananas to nuclear. I was actually replying to the comment that there is no safe level of radiation exposure. the fact is we are designed to handle radiation of certain levels. I simply used the banana because most people have heard in the last year or two that they are naturally radioactive. I was roughly pointing out, in a way that most people could wrap their heads around just how radioactive they were. If humans have no safe expose rate to radiation then most of would be dead by 40 or so. Although i will concede that the level is veeery low when you are talking about "extra" radiation being added to all the the radiation we get from outer space, the planet and our food.

Now, I do agree with you about not swapping one problem for another. But that is not what the article was about. My comments were chosen because of the article, not because I think we should switch from one to the other. However given the choice of only those two. I would take nuclear. What are we going t do once the pollution from fossil fuels gets to a point where crops won't grow?

I couldn't find the exact link I got my data from but this one is pretty good about the 3.1 million deaths. Gives credit and such for the info.

brita :

Unbeliever :

But if there is no wind the sun maybe powering the solar farms, or the water currents will be powering the water current farms.

Which is why is makes sense to use a group of mutually supporting clean renewable sources to obtain our supplies of electricity cleanly.

Or, just stop wasting time, energy and resources and develop fusion power.

Fusion power may well be nearer than first thought, an organisation in the USA is hoping to have their fusion reactor operational later this year (abet not a commercial reactor).

Fusion reactors would provide all the electricity everyone on the planet will ever need, will only need 100 gallons of water per year per million people to run (as it uses hydrogen as a fuel instead of uranium) and will produce a little helium as a 'waste' product which can be captured and put into kids ballons for fun.

Patrle deaths from nuclearick :

15 Mar 2012 4:00:22pm

Hello Robert,I don't have the figure for fossils but I do not doubt they are very high as you say. Do I fear nuclear? Very much so, consider relations between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, North Korea etc. Nuclear power goes hand in hand with weapon manufacture. Nuclear and fossils and renewables etc. must all be safe and economical. Why are fossils so damaging? Because we are told that this is the way it is, it will be too costly or we did not know the danger (sounds like cigarette propaganda). Those deaths should and could have been much lower, remember the fuss the oil industry went on about removing lead from petrol or the far more polluting local diesel than Europe's much cleaner diesel. It is wrong to accept any such damaging fuel sources. Nuclear danger and health hazards are very much under reported. Do you really believe that Chernobyl only had fifty deaths as many nuclear apologists say? The fact that there is other radiation sources in our lives is not justification for more radiation. All radiation is bad, of course the lower the better. I accept in general the comparative analysis but remember fossils have be used much longer and are more widespread than nuclear hence the greater number of fossil power plants, not that this excuses the deadly health hazard nor should it allow nuclear to not be of the highest standard which I do not believe it is. I mean for goodness sake they did not protect the backup power in Fukushima so that went that went down all hell broke loose. It's no good making excuses here because as you know the biggest cause of accidents in planes is human error and this has, does and will be the case for nuclear. It’s not as if another nuclear accident will happen but when! However nuclear potential for long term damage either by weapons or widespread long term power plant contamination make it unviable for me and it’s costly (i.e. with no government subsidies). It would only be by the most irresponsible reliance on fossils as opposed to clean renewables that I would ever consider nuclear (global warming). Again tell me how poor countries can safely use nuclear as I noted India has people working with no protection in asbestos mines right now! Do you think they will be safe with nuclear? I doubt it. Risk examines not best practice but the likelihood of an accident. Renewables and energy conservation must be a top priority, they can economically address base load problems and are much safer, cleaner and some can be expanded to meet demand in a way and timeframe that nuclear cannot match. I do consider all options but for some reason alternatives in this country are off the radar. Why for example did the solar photovoltaic scheme get installed on individual houses? I did myself for 1.5kW system and I do understand the GFC employment stimulus but should we not have had PV farms , much cheaper installation etc. , no tree shade problems or second best orientation. Individuals could still purchase the PV and

Robert Pruitt :

16 Mar 2012 7:52:50pm

No worker safe in any kind of mine if they live in a culture that doesn't really value human life or one in which the company faces legislation, bankruptcy from lawsuits by sick or injured workers. I will point you to America and it's coal mines of many years ago. Black lung was common as dirt in people who spent decades in those mines.

And just like everything else in countries where companies have the above "problems" coal mines are safer, just as newer nuclear plants are safer than ever. The older ones are the real concern, but even then they are to date much much safer than fossil fuels. Additionally America and Russia has more nuclear fuel for weapons than they need. Some countries(Iran) need to be stopped from building any power plant that can generate spent fuel that than be enriched for weapons(not all do).

Also the back-up power was generators and they ran out of fuel.

And the easiest way to make nuclear power safer is to keep humans away from the controls as much as possible. It's pretty well known that if people had sat down and had a coffee then the automatic systems at 3-mile island would have safely shut the plant down with no problems. It was humans getting in the way that was the problem(mainly they didn't believe what the gauges were telling them).And yes I do believe the 50 count death toll from Chernobyl(it was published soon after the accident) and they expect 4-9 thousand to die earlier due to the effects of the radiation. It was just 50 up to that point in time.

I asked this in an above post to someone else. But I wish to ask it of you as well.What happens when we pollute the water and soil with fossil fuels to the point that it starts to interfere with crops growing? And yes, sooner or later, if we don't stop using fossil fuels it will happen.

Terry Krieg :

16 Mar 2012 9:12:21am

It's time all you anti nuclear zealots actually got your facts straight. If you're interested in hearing the facts about Chernobyl then get hold of a copy of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR] a report handed down in 2000 following 14 years of research by scientists from eight independent countries who studied the disaster after it hapened on 26/4/1986. Here's a summary: The Chernobyl incident caused direct deaths of 30 plant operators, high radiation doses to 600 emergency personnel with 134 experiencing acute radiation sickness with 100 having ongoing health impairment, an increased RISK of non-fatal thyroid cancer especially in those who were children at the time,no evidence other major impacts on public health caused by exposure to ionizing radiation, no other increase in overall cancer incidence or mortalitu that could be associated with radiation exposure and no increased risk of leukemia and no increase in the incidence of birth defects. They are the FACTS which I used in my Ockhams Razor talk of Jan 15th this year. Check it out on www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor. While there you might also check my first OR talk of September 4th 2011 on climate change and future energy.

Help101 :

16 Mar 2012 2:30:21pm

Also from the ABC.

"According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual's risk for the development of cancer."

Associate Professor Tilman Ruff of University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute for Global Health says there may be a threshold for some effects of radiation, but not for cancer.

"There is unfortunately a continuing tirade of statements by self-interested parties and some official agencies implying a threshold for radiation exposure below which there are no adverse consequences," says Ruff

Robert Pruitt :

16 Mar 2012 6:18:57pm

Mind if I ask where that water will be returned to? It's got to go somewhere, and sooner or later it will end up back in the environment. Once there it will do what water does. Evaporate. In Georgia the water from that river is almost to the ocean anyways. So diverting it means nothing since shortly after it passes the nuclear plant it dumps into the ocean and becomes unusable anyway. So it's not really taking it from human use. Unless you're telling us that we use all the water from that river and none of it gets to the ocean. If that's the case then your argument is valid.

Unbeliever :

19 Mar 2012 1:44:06pm

mmmmm.... drinking water that has been through the piping in a nuclear plant.

Delicious!

"no leaks here mate!.... well not yet anyways.... well not that we are telling anyone about... well ok just a small leak but below "safety level"... who checked the levels? oh we did! Trust me! I used to work in used car sales...."

non de plum :

20 Mar 2012 6:36:26am

Focusing on the ignorance of the masses with regard to any thesis does not remedy the political or the economic cause. A Professors training is to insist on reductionist proof, and use these empirical components to construct creative hypothesis for further examination: he does himself and his science a disservice by flirting with the arts of Joseph Goebells, of Edward Bernays and of superstitious fanatics.The political question of the control of supply is of fundamental importance to the energy debate. Nuclear energy, like petroleum, is a strongly centralised supply paradigm, with all the military and the economic implications of imperialism.The opportunity to radically decentralise the supply of essential commodities without firing a shot does exist; the strategic benefit of locally owned and controlled nodes in a larger legally framed network, such as the media in which you read these words, was established by the US Military.Locally balanced energy budgets, by the economic benefit they bring to the community, would empower the education to overcome the very ignorance you prey upon, sir.

brita :

28 Mar 2012 8:29:36pm

yes ... information is power - or rather lack of informed masses ... creates power for some ... i did a quick search and found that there are over 350 active (as we speak) power stations world wide and at least 100 under construction - i can only think of maybe 5 major critical compromising events since 3 mile ... so i ask how many coal plants and mining accidents were there in the formative years of the fossil fuel industry ... ???

Lucy :

24 Apr 2012 11:19:22am

The Fukushima story is not yet over.The damaged site is not yet safe.Those exposed may be a long time in dying and being counted.Saying, "Would the many people who would ban nuclear power also prohibit air travel? " shows very shallow thinking. The Twin Towers atrocity was as bad an air travel disaster as can be imagined but those who died died quickly and the site is being restored to human use. This is not true of Fukushima which will not be restored to farming and human habitation for aeons to come.The fuel in nuclear power generation is non-renewable and will in time run out. The time scale and cost of providing nuclear power for 7-9 billion people are enormous.Whatever cleverness (not yet seen) nuclear engineers may have, human error has been an on-going problem in nuclear power plants.We, the tax-payers, through governments have largely subsidised all nuclear power plants so far (originally as a concealed way of subsidising nuclear weapon Let's not be conned anymore by vested interests.